Who are the pests?

Because we are surrounded by people who are either unwilling or unable to grasp basic logic, including members of our family who we would otherwise respect.

We are surrounded by speciesism, but with no justification given for exactly what the relevant differences are between people and cows (for example) that make one ok to kill but not the other, because it is so ingrained within society. Everyone we know is ethically opposed to the murder of innocent humans for food/pleasure/entertainment etc. yet they fail to extend this same position to other sentient animals based on a naturalistic fallacy ie. "but the cavemen did it!" or "but lions eat zebras!" as if cavemen and wild animals are a reasonable model to base one's ethics upon in civilised society. Adopting caveman/lion ethics is effectively the same as dismissing ethics altogether, which could be a logically coherent position as long as you don't complain if a beloved human is murdered.

I'm angry because I feel as if I'm surrounded by racists (speciesists) who say "but we are the superior species!" Now if for example, Hitler had scientific proof that Jews were inferior, would this have made the Holocaust justifiable? Of course not. The branding of someone as "inferior" is just a defence mechanism to make people feel better about unnecessary exploitation/harm of sentient innocent beings. I'm surrounded by holocaust deniers, who seem to pretend that it isn't their fault that we unnecessarily kill 60 billion land animals and about a trillion sea animals each year.

I'm surrounded by people who make excuses like "I think you own something that may have been produced in less than fair working conditions, so it's ok for me to kill animals everyday for no reason", when they know this excuse would not stand if the atrocities they were committing were against humans. 99% of all the suffering and death we cause is through consumption of meat, dairy and eggs. Quit eating those and then I'll happily discuss the other 1% with you.

But in real life I'm actually pretty chilled out. If people think I'm a dickhead they'll never side with me.

Because we are surrounded by people who are either unwilling or unable to grasp basic logic, including members of our family who we would otherwise respect.

We are surrounded by speciesism, but with no justification given for exactly what the relevant differences are between people and cows (for example) that make one ok to kill but not the other, because it is so ingrained within society. Everyone we know is ethically opposed to the murder of innocent humans for food/pleasure/entertainment etc. yet they fail to extend this same position to other sentient animals based on a naturalistic fallacy ie. "but the cavemen did it!" or "but lions eat zebras!" as if cavemen and wild animals are a reasonable model to base one's ethics upon in civilised society. Adopting caveman/lion ethics is effectively the same as dismissing ethics altogether, which could be a logically coherent position as long as you don't complain if a beloved human is murdered.

I'm angry because I feel as if I'm surrounded by racists (speciesists) who say "but we are the superior species!" Now if for example, Hitler had scientific proof that Jews were inferior, would this have made the Holocaust justifiable? Of course not. The branding of someone as "inferior" is just a defence mechanism to make people feel better about unnecessary exploitation/harm of sentient innocent beings. I'm surrounded by holocaust deniers, who seem to pretend that it isn't their fault that we unnecessarily kill 60 billion land animals and about a trillion sea animals each year.

I'm surrounded by people who make excuses like "I think you own something that may have been produced in less than fair working conditions, so it's ok for me to kill animals everyday for no reason", when they know this excuse would not stand if the atrocities they were committing were against humans. 99% of all the suffering and death we cause is through consumption of meat, dairy and eggs. Quit eating those and then I'll happily discuss the other 1% with you.

But in real life I'm actually pretty chilled out. If people think I'm a dickhead they'll never side with me.

I don't really disagree with you. What strikes me most about the vegan position is the general misanthropy of their beliefs towards people, when people do the same things all life on this planet will do - due to limited space and limited resources - it is only a matter of scale that makes our actions seem more heinous. I don't understand why one extreme (mass consumption/displacement/destruction of non-human life) has to lead vegans in the complete opposite extreme.

I don't really disagree with you. What strikes me most about the vegan position is the general misanthropy of their beliefs towards people, when people do the same things all life on this planet will do - due to limited space and limited resources - it is only a matter of scale that makes our actions seem more heinous. I don't understand why one extreme (mass consumption/displacement/destruction of non-human life) has to lead vegans in the complete opposite extreme.

Where is the balance?

Many vegans are misanthropic, but the concept of "no unnecessary violence or slavery" is one that veganism applies to humans as well non-human animals. You are right that we do have different expectations of civilised human behaviour as compared to that of a lion or caveman. This isn't because of misanthropy, as it actually upholds a higher standard in humans because in civilisation we are capable of making ethical decisions. I would never criticise an ancient tribe living isolated from society which relies on fishing/hunting as a food source.

I don't quite understand your connection between limited resources and the need to exploit animals. Obviously increased population means increased food production (which currently involves animals) but in order to achieve this it would make more sense to use more efficient forms of production, which means feeding all our soy and grain etc. directly to humans. As it stands, we artificially inflate the herbivore population, then feed them 80% of the world's soy, 85% of which they literally turn to shit, and then eat the small portion of it that converts to "food".

Forbinator, you have my respect for being vegan. However, there's too much Peter Singer-style liberalism in your post.

Quote

We are surrounded by speciesism, but with no justification given for exactly what the relevant differences are between people and cows (for example) that make one ok to kill but not the other, because it is so ingrained within society. Everyone we know is ethically opposed to the murder of innocent humans for food/pleasure/entertainment etc. yet they fail to extend this same position to other sentient animals based on a naturalistic fallacy ie. "but the cavemen did it!" or "but lions eat zebras!" as if cavemen and wild animals are a reasonable model to base one's ethics upon in civilised society. Adopting caveman/lion ethics is effectively the same as dismissing ethics altogether, which could be a logically coherent position as long as you don't complain if a beloved human is murdered.

It's true that the position of society is moronic and incoherent - however I don't think it's a good idea to confuse modern carnivore ethics with cavemen ethics.

One views animals as pieces of meat wrapped in plastic.The other viewed them as fellow travelers in the great gladiatorial arena of life.

[To clarify: civilization can be compatible with caveman ethics. We are mammals and observe territorial politics. Suffering/war/death are not opposed to civilization. Thinking otherwise leads to Christianity/liberalism/general faggotry]

Quote

Now if for example, Hitler had scientific proof that Jews were inferior, would this have made the Holocaust justifiable?

Certainly. The culling of an inferior path within a species is natural.

Without such proof, it still couldn't be said to be "wrong" - it's simply a natural product of mammalian politics. We live. We struggle. We die.

My problem with humans in relation to meat consumption is this: there is no struggle - and therefore no honor. 98% of people would refuse to ever see meat again if it meant they'd have to survive being chased by a hungry tiger to reach it.

I don't understand why one extreme (mass consumption/displacement/destruction of non-human life) has to lead vegans in the complete opposite extreme.

Look at it this way: somebody must atone.

That sounds awful liberal to me!

I prefer a harmonious synthesis of misanthropy AND devouring of animal flesh. It's not as if an animal wouldn't feast on me if given the opportunity. (It's also not as if I would *give* them the opportunity; being a human comes with many advantages that I shamelessly exploit.)

I don't really disagree with you. What strikes me most about the vegan position is the general misanthropy of their beliefs towards people, when people do the same things all life on this planet will do - due to limited space and limited resources - it is only a matter of scale that makes our actions seem more heinous. I don't understand why one extreme (mass consumption/displacement/destruction of non-human life) has to lead vegans in the complete opposite extreme.

Where is the balance?

Many vegans are misanthropic, but the concept of "no unnecessary violence or slavery" is one that veganism applies to humans as well non-human animals. You are right that we do have different expectations of civilised human behaviour as compared to that of a lion or caveman. This isn't because of misanthropy, as it actually upholds a higher standard in humans because in civilisation we are capable of making ethical decisions. I would never criticise an ancient tribe living isolated from society which relies on fishing/hunting as a food source.

I don't quite understand your connection between limited resources and the need to exploit animals. Obviously increased population means increased food production (which currently involves animals) but in order to achieve this it would make more sense to use more efficient forms of production, which means feeding all our soy and grain etc. directly to humans. As it stands, we artificially inflate the herbivore population, then feed them 80% of the world's soy, 85% of which they literally turn to shit, and then eat the small portion of it that converts to "food".

Hubris goes both ways. It's easy to point it out when humans declare they are above nature - which by the way is philosophically unique to our civilization - it's painful to see that hubris go unnoticed when people claim that humans should know better (a statement that places humans above animals, only different in context). Life is in a constant push pull with itself due to a finite amount of space and resources. Organisms adapt to exploit what niche they are able to find. Expecting humanity to act against this cardinal mechanism, turning to misanthropy when Man falls to live up to YOUR image of him is asinine.

Most people probably have no clue how industry treats what ends up on their table and are far to busy handling concerns greater than how the food got on the table. Spreading the information to them is good, but don't insult them like they never heard Jesus.

It is good to be a crow. I watch humans, some of whom have much in common, squabbling over details at every turn. Ever ready to be at each others throats. Civilization gives them that option. Without it, they would, like brothers, rely completely upon each other.

Well that's exactly the problem, isn't it? The relationship between man and nature.How can it be that man still doesn't understand he is nature, and had better bloody well start behaving appropriately.

Well that's exactly the problem, isn't it? The relationship between man and nature.How can it be that man still doesn't understand he is nature, and had better bloody well start behaving appropriately.